Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Who's Not In Line To Inherit A Property?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

;)

Spot on.

In theory I stand to inherit about 300K and OH about 500K. We aren't living our lives in anticipation of it, and we certainly haven't borrowed against it.

It might happen next week, we might get very little in 20 years time after it's been whittled away by care home fees, we might not get a penny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My family and my wifes family have all decided to leave all the wealth to the grandchildren..we have enough for ourselves so do not need to inherit and the money will give the grandchildren a leg up,,,,,

Or no reason to work and the opportunity to squander it. Whereas you will sensibly invest it and it won't destroy your work ethic.

Money at a young age is a curse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you are trying to apply labels to me, and finding they don't fit; which is why Tamara de Lempicka is wrong when s/he says funny how such threads degenerate into boomer bashing. By age I'm tail-end boomer, but as I didn't go to university until I was 30 - result of disasters in the parents' lives - my experiences are Generation X. We don't all fit neat boxes.

The point I think (?) I'm consistent on is that it's to do with wealth and class. The rich get richer and the poor get screwed over. What is striking now is the extent to which this distinction is now inter-generational. I saw some stats recently showing that in the last 10 years the wealth of those aged under 35 has dropped dramatically, while that of those aged 55 plus has increased equally dramatically. On aggregate, because individual cases aren't terribly helpful, the issues are inter-generational, and they arise from people aged 50+ who expect to get richer and richer from unearned compounded gains on financial and physical assets. And my God, they spit out their dummies when you suggest that we need to cut pensions for those who have already retired. But there in today's "Observer" is Ruth Sunderland pointing out that the pension promises made to those who have retired, or will retire soon, are utterly unsustainable. Yet the expectation remains that their kids will pay and pay and pay again.

Here's two shockers from the same paper:

The Pensions Regulator wants EMI to stump up £250m to top up its pension fund. (Remember EMI was bought by Guy Hands/Terra Firma for £3.2Bn of leveraged/debt money three years ago.) EMI's pension scheme has 22,000 members, of whom 500 are working for the scheme and paying contributions. 21,500 claimants for 500 employees; how's that supposed to work? Clue - not by getting the 500 employees to cough £500,000 each.

M&S and Sainsburys also have pension shortfalls. Proposed solution? Give the pensions funds a chunk of the company's property portfolio. Apparently PriceWaterhouseCoopers is advising "33 'major UK employers' on using more than £5bn of non-cash funding in this way". So that's the kitchen sink getting thrown in to keep paying out the pensions; and what will they do next time? Give them the keys to the executive loo?

Whatever people might or might not think of boomers, etc etc, the fact is that previous generations have made themselves promises that can't be paid. At bottom, high house prices are a blank cheque drawn on the next generation. The reason this country is in such a mess is because of people who want to live off the backs of other peoples' work by "investing" in, principally, property, as well as pensions. They are demanding an unwarranted and unsustainable return. The sense of entitlement is palpable but try suggesting a reset in pension and property/financial asset prices and see where that gets you.

... and you think even using the word 'boomer' is not putting people into boxes?

Do you actually know where the term derived and the age range it is supposed to cover?

I think not.

This thread was about the possible increase of people due to inherit property (if they hadn't already done so) and the possible effects on mind-set and the housing market.

You've quite admirably tried to turn it around into a rant about pensions, and even though you will be inheriting (although we still haven't got a clue when because you're mother can be anything between 65 to 90) how hard done by you are.

Go start your own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say that I will definitely inherit a huge sum so I should do nothing with my life and sit on my **** until they die? 20-30 years, possibly more? Why don't I just move back in with them and be a layabout. I could even claim a few benefits whilst I'm at it.

I said nothing about stuffing my parents in a care home. However if they are of the state where they require 24 hour nursing care, at no point in my life, working or retired will I be able to provide that personally at home. I will either pay for a nurse at home, or put them in a nursing home. And there will go the inheritance.

Edit to add: I just reread that and it looks like I'm bitter about paying for nursing care. I'm not, indeed I fully expect it, hence my self-made mini-fortune. I also have nothing against parents who want to help out their children, my only problem is that there is a lot of MEW-ing of homes in order to buy overpriced starter properties, that is dangerous.

In bold - no, it's never been mentioned - you made that bit up.

The point I was making in reference to care homes is that it seems a lot of people seem to think their parents will end up in one and they will receive no inheritance.

I don't think it looks as if you are bitter about paying for nursing care, not in the least. I do however think that people skirt the issue of inherting by saying their parents will probably end up needing it, hence the money will be used up.

I, on the other hand, haven't had any relatives needing long term care - not of course that I'm saying it doesn't exist, it's a nightmare for those that need to use it for one reason or another, but it isn't as prevelant as many seem to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that does seem to keep cropping up is that posters parents are going to miss out the children regarding inheritance and leave it to grandchildren.

So, even now, people who are dying in their 70s and 80s are leaving it to the younger first time buyer population?

I don't know about money at a young age being a curse Porcia - as somebody said to me many years ago (in respect of two brothers) Give somebody 10k and they will invest it, give it to somebody else and they'll put it on a horse. (A situation that another poster mentioned!)

What does interest me though is a general feeling through the threads that the money is of no importance? Is that playing down our good fortune (like the word or not it is good fortune) or a general attitude toward the value of money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that does seem to keep cropping up is that posters parents are going to miss out the children regarding inheritance and leave it to grandchildren.

So, even now, people who are dying in their 70s and 80s are leaving it to the younger first time buyer population?

I don't know about money at a young age being a curse Porcia - as somebody said to me many years ago (in respect of two brothers) Give somebody 10k and they will invest it, give it to somebody else and they'll put it on a horse. (A situation that another poster mentioned!)

Hey, that's what I said :o

To many it is. Lottery winners at 18 seem like the archetypal child star; it usually goes horribly wrong. If I had won £1m at 18 it would have had a corrosive effect upon me. Now it would make virtually no difference to how I live, maybe I would sleep a bit sounder is all.

What does interest me though is a general feeling through the threads that the money is of no importance? Is that playing down our good fortune (like the word or not it is good fortune) or a general attitude toward the value of money?

As long as you have enough for what you want then it isn't important. For some people what they want is limitless so they can never have enough, whilst others will struggle to pay the rent each month. For both of those groups money is highly important. Most people on here seem to be in a comfortable middle ground with limited material aspirations and the income to cover what little they do want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and not that I want to stray into pensions territory, but Munro, you seem to be saying that the people who paid money out of their wages, in good faith that a certain amount would be returned on retirement, are now gits for actually wanting/expecting that amount? It's their fault that the pension schemes are up the swanny. Is that right?

They are also gits for gifting their paid-for properties to their children and it won't (in your case 2-300k) make a jot of difference to your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's what I said :o

To many it is. Lottery winners at 18 seem like the archetypal child star; it usually goes horribly wrong. If I had won £1m at 18 it would have had a corrosive effect upon me. Now it would make virtually no difference to how I live, maybe I would sleep a bit sounder is all.

As long as you have enough for what you want then it isn't important. For some people what they want is limitless so they can never have enough, whilst others will struggle to pay the rent each month. For both of those groups money is highly important. Most people on here seem to be in a comfortable middle ground with limited material aspirations and the income to cover what little they do want.

I do know what you're saying, and it is more likely to be damaging if you come into a lot of money quickly, but you still see the same trend in older individuals that win large amounts?

But I've decided that the damage, for the older generation, is down to losing goals. You win a lot of money, pack the job in and lose direction - then spend a lot of the money trying to find something to fill the gap.

Wasn't there a couple in their 60s who won about 13m and have given all of it away to either family or helping charities - said they had a great time, gave them lots of involvement and would do exactly the same thing again.

Personally, if I had a large amount of money, I would be very, very, reluctant to leave it to a younger person for fear of causing more harm than good. But I still know a good few folk in their 40s and 50s that would get through it in no time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know what you're saying, and it is more likely to be damaging if you come into a lot of money quickly, but you still see the same trend in older individuals that win large amounts?

But I've decided that the damage, for the older generation, is down to losing goals. You win a lot of money, pack the job in and lose direction - then spend a lot of the money trying to find something to fill the gap.

Wasn't there a couple in their 60s who won about 13m and have given all of it away to either family or helping charities - said they had a great time, gave them lots of involvement and would do exactly the same thing again.

Yes, though they have goals to lose which they need to consciously give up and, as you say, there are success stories like the one you cite as well as the failures.

Personally, if I had a large amount of money, I would be very, very, reluctant to leave it to a younger person for fear of causing more harm than good. But I still know a good few folk in their 40s and 50s that would get through it in no time!

You must know my brother and sister then :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, though they have goals to lose which they need to consciously give up and, as you say, there are success stories like the one you cite as well as the failures.

You must know my brother and sister then :D

I was actually thinking of my sister, Frank!

Edit: Does this mean my sister's called Frank?

Okay, just in case;

Actually, Frank, I was thinking of my sister!

Edited by dipstick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always assumed that my parents house would be sold to pay for their old age. Unless they die suddenly of course. Even so I would expect to be 60 before recieving their estate so it's not something Ive thought about. Doubt I'll still be a FTB by then..... Well then again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally if I had kids I would leave them very little as I believe people have to make their own fortunes. Too many of my friends have large sums coming their way, and their reckless behaviour (financially) has been ludicrous as they think they'll get bailed out at some point. No matter how much graft I put in, they will always be richer than me because of their inheritance, and it p!sses me off because I work ten times harder than any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some stage, i'll inherit my parents assets (large house in a village on exmoor, 800 acres tenanted farm land, 2 cottages, 2 large multi occupancy properties in town, all mortgage free) probably 'worth' £3-4 million. On top of this, my uncle who was unable to have children is also planning on leaving his house and land to me (similar acreage, bigger house, prob 'worth' £2 million).

The thing is, 7 years ago I set up a business which is doing well and will provide for me and my young family so I've never really thought about kicking back and waiting for them all to die so i could get my hands on their wealth (which is part inherited from their parents and part earned by themselves). It's more a family/legacy thing for me - adding to the previous generations & hope my children will think likewise and not piss it all up the wall.

One thing I am going to do though is to make sure the government of the day get as little as possible on the event of my death, the thieving buggers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and not that I want to stray into pensions territory, but Munro, you seem to be saying that the people who paid money out of their wages, in good faith that a certain amount would be returned on retirement, are now gits for actually wanting/expecting that amount? It's their fault that the pension schemes are up the swanny. Is that right?

They are also gits for gifting their paid-for properties to their children and it won't (in your case 2-300k) make a jot of difference to your life?

+1

We keep hearing these scarmongering stories about the black holes that company pension schemes have in their finances , but it is very rare to hear much about the contribution holidays they took when the schemes looked healthy.

Both the tories and labour are to blame for the current problems. The tories started taxing the surpluses instead of letting them sit there to cover leaner times, so the companies used that as an excuse to take contribution holidays. Then GB taxed the dividends and signed the death knell for final salary schemes.

After Maxwell jumped over board John Major should have overhauled the schemes to make them water tight but failed to act in the best interests of the members .

Remember working with a guy who's opinion was that the pensions were deliberately tampered with by both governments as too many ordinary people with a house and a good company pension were getting too comfotable. I did see where i worked that many in their earily mid fitties were able to retire in comfort , maybe the governments did not want this. Looking at things now it is a great pity that more people can not retire at that age freeing up more jobs for those in the next generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally if I had kids I would leave them very little as I believe people have to make their own fortunes. Too many of my friends have large sums coming their way, and their reckless behaviour (financially) has been ludicrous as they think they'll get bailed out at some point. No matter how much graft I put in, they will always be richer than me because of their inheritance, and it p!sses me off because I work ten times harder than any of them.

So you want your kids to be equally pissed off as you are ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and not that I want to stray into pensions territory, but Munro, you seem to be saying that the people who paid money out of their wages, in good faith that a certain amount would be returned on retirement, are now gits for actually wanting/expecting that amount? It's their fault that the pension schemes are up the swanny. Is that right?

They are also gits for gifting their paid-for properties to their children and it won't (in your case 2-300k) make a jot of difference to your life?

You can't separate pensions and inheritance. The traditional life cycle model is that people build up financial assets while they are working and then run them down when they die. If they run them down then there's no inheritance. Pay people big pensions and they don't need to use their savings, then you get inheritance as a major issue. The Australian government did some research into this a while ago. Up until around the mid 1990s, if I remember rightly, the life-cycle model worked reasonably well, for most people (leaving out the very rich as outliers). From the late 1990s on they were surprised to find that the model broke down. In fact due to increases in property values and generous pensions they found that the nett wealth of retired people was on average increasing after they retired. This is the redistribution effect from young to old that prices out the young and means that they need inheritances to buy property in turn; and it also meant that inheritance became a significant issue for a large number of people. Generous pensions and HPI lead to inheritance, etc etc. So there is no clear-cut separation between pensions and inheritance.

There's no point in arguing over labels and whether or not people are gits. Yes, I should have scrupulously avoided the boomer label as it is lazy. The problem with pensions is that the funded ones have accumulated so much money that they are now serial bubble-blowing. Anyone who wants to buy a house should be terrified at the prospect of pension funds moving into residential property so they can maintain returns to those who have or will soon retire. It will make younger people serfs farmed for money to maintain their elders' pensions, when they won't get pensions themselves let alone become home-owners. As for unfunded schemes, they are a nightmare.

I'd have thought a thread consisting of people listing how much they think they will inherit would be pretty dull, tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want anything from my parents - I'd tell them to spend their money! I intend to before I die - every last penny. Sorry, but a lot of people have it easy with inheritance - I think people should spend the money they accumulate, but hey ho. My anger is directed at those who have it easy and just sail through life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want anything from my parents - I'd tell them to spend their money! I intend to before I die - every last penny. Sorry, but a lot of people have it easy with inheritance - I think people should spend the money they accumulate, but hey ho. My anger is directed at those who have it easy and just sail through life.

Nobody sails through life......You are right about when you work doing something you enjoy, value, it gives self esteem and a purpose you value each pound you earn....when it is handed on a plate it can be spent at ease and easily wasted.

When the money dries up, or was never there in the first place it is funny how most of us can be very resourceful if need be. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To many it is. Lottery winners at 18 seem like the archetypal child star; it usually goes horribly wrong. If I had won £1m at 18 it would have had a corrosive effect upon me. Now it would make virtually no difference to how I live, maybe I would sleep a bit sounder is all.

People are different. If I'd won a million at 18, I'm afraid most of it might've just gone in the bank, generating a huge income at double-digit interest rates (though come to think of it, it would've been an incentive to think of better things to do with it)! If I'd won the same at 22 I'd've bought a house.

Even now a million would buy a very nice house. But we don't have to think in extremes. Just £5k at 22, plus a maximum mortgage on a new-graduate salary, would've got a basic one-bedroom flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought about this before but after reading a couple of threads where people are, yet again, spitting their dummies out about the 'greedy' boomers, wondered who out there, is not in line to inherit a property?

I'm not, incidentally.

We talk constantly about the down sides to the property boom (well deserved in most cases) but hasn't this, for many people, actually brought a benefit?

When I was a kid most people had council houses, in fact I bet I'd have trouble counting the number of people on one hand who were going to be lucky enough to 'inherit.' Yet now, when I look around I can't think of one single person who won't. Not one.

For me this has sort of become the elephant in the room. It's there, millions will benefit, yet it's never brought up.

I now know (didn't originally) that most people on this forum are well paid middle-class and so it's probably a bit skewed, but was wondering out of us lot who wasn't in line to inherit a property and get a fair old boost to their lifestyle?

All my close mates have parents who have 4-5 bedroom houses worth £250k-£450k in todays prices and should inherit a share in the next 20-30 years (we are all early 40's). That is if their parents don't downsize and spend it or are forced to sell up for old age care if they live to long etc. Nothing is Gaurenteed.

In fact the mere thought of the fact they might get caught for old age care costs. scares the pants off all my mates. You see their grandparents are mostly still alive and in their late 80's now and coming from council houses they ahve no assets as such so the State picks up the old age bill.

But all my mates parents have potential £1/2 millon+ houses in the next 20 years so may be forced to pay up if the old age care situation gets bad, which I suspect it will.

I'm kind of glad my dad never had the cash or took the risk into property and stuck with his local goverment cival service job for 42 years. He now has just turned 62, been semi retired since he was 60 under the "40" year rule (max you can pay into a cival service pension) and receives an RPI linked final salary pension of.....................£19k p/a. Plus he is being kept on by the local council until he is 65 doing a customer service role for the dept his full time role was in and gets paid a full pro rata salary at the same hourly rate as his old full time job for working 8.30-1pm mon to Fri.

So he is raking it in this last few years.

Now have you looked recently at how big your pension pot has to be to buy an annuity that gaurentees £19k P/A RPI Index linked from 60 until you die.................it's an effing lot trust me. The monthly pension payments to get that would probably make your over infalted mortgage payments look good value!

Property sale fund in retrirement wont last for ever............but I doubt as it would affect politions retirement I doubt goverment pensions will ever be tampered with much.

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now have you looked recently at how big your pension pot has to be to buy an annuity that gaurentees £19k P/A RPI Index linked from 60 until you die.................it's an effing lot trust me.

About £470k pot. Less if you include the state pension in the £19k.

For someone in good health, retirement at 60 or 65 is an extended holiday. Holidays cost.

OTOH, at a group level, sixtysomethings with time on their hands contribute a helluva lot to society, through both formal and informal voluntary work. My father was never so busy as in his first few years after retiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.